George asked if I would post a list of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. I debated whether it made more sense to simply enumerate them or include the listing as part of a larger, significantly more detailed, text that I've composed and reworked several times over the years to answer a variety of questions. The advantage of the latter is that it presents the info in a more organized fashion than is likely to be generated in response to questions developing in the aftermath of a simple list - so, here goes. I'm going to break it up into a series of posts, in the interests of readibility.

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

There are 23 Churches sui iuris (literally, ‘of their own law’, transliterated as ‘self-governing’ or ‘autonomous’) that, together, constitute the Catholic Church - 1 Western and 22 Eastern and Oriental Churches. All 23 are in communion with Rome, with the Latin Church being the most populous and well-known. In fact, many Catholics and non-Catholics alike are unaware of the Catholic Church in any manifestation other than that of its Latin or Western component.

(In answer to those who would query how 23 can be 1, and with no intent to trivialize the Mystery of the Trinity, I can only suggest reflecting on Saint Patrick’s example of the three-leaved shamrock.)

The 23 Churches, despite significant diversity in their liturgical praxis, spirituality, and other respects, as illustrated below, are in communion with one another and with the Pope. Although the manner in which their beliefs are expressed and understood differ in some instances, they also have a shared adherence to the teachings enunciated by the Magisterium.

Arguments can be made whether 22 is an accurate number as to the non-Western Churches, since:

the long-term sede vacante status of some Churches begs the question as to whether they can realistically be termed sui iuris

failure to designate a primatial hierarch has divided others into separate canonical entities that belie the fiction of being a single ecclesia

one is, in fact, jurisdictionally sited within the Western Church.

I've made efforts to address (if not satisfactorily explain) these points hereafter, whether successfully or not is for the reader to judge.

[continued]

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 07:15:16 AM by Irish Melkite »

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

This document evolved from a simple list of Rites and Churches created a few years ago, has been expanded several times by addition of pertinent information, and has had related texts merged with it to afford a fuller picture of the structure of Eastern and Oriental Catholicity. In all its iterations, editorial comment has been avoided in favor of factual presentation, leaving analysis, interpretation, and conclusions to the mind and imagination of the reader. However, this time, the compulsion to address the validity of terming Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches as sui iuris has overtaken and vanquished self-restraint..

Patriarchal and Major-Archepiscopal Churches are, to an extent, self-governing. Within the so-called “historical territories” of the primatial hierarch of each of these Churches, the hierarch and synod have the power of governance, with only subtle differences between the two statuses.

In recent history, however, even the scope of authority accorded by the Eastern Code (CCEO) can and has been withheld by Rome from one such Church - the restrictions imposed on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church during the first decade (1993-2003) of it being a Major Arch-Episcopate are the case on point. For the first five years of that period, the Church was denied decision-making authority as to matters liturgical (the sole power that all Patriarchs and Major-Archbishops routinely exercise even outside their circumscribed historical bounds). It was five years more before the Church was accorded the right to nominate hierarchs to canonical jurisdictions within the territory of the Major Arch-Episcopate.

When denominated to that status, barely more than a century had passed since appointment of the Church’s first indigenous hierarchs (1886); and only 80 years since a full hierarchical structure was established for it (1923). Thus, at the time, I rationalized that the Church, likely due to its numbers of 3.6 million faithful, had been selected to share the ecclesial status of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC), but lacked the centuries of operational experience that the UGCC brought to the table when it was accorded Major-Archepiscopal status.

In retrospect, it was remiss not to acknowledge that the internal turmoil surrounding liturgical praxis in the Syro-Malabar Church was not merely contributory to Rome’s decision, but causative as well. Such, however, begs the question - is it appropriate to thusly interfere, interject, or intervene in the day-to-day decision-making of an ecclesia that is denominated as sui iuris and has just been canonically elevated to a status then accorded to only two Churches? On reflection, the answer is “no!” - the more so because centuries of ill-advised superintendence, exercised over the indigenous Church by transplanted hierarchs in the name of the Roman dicastries, was a significant factor in creating the situation that the imposed restrictions were intended to solve. (Notably, although beyond the scope of this discussion, Rome ultimately walked away from the matter, having accomplished little to nothing toward its resolution.)

Move outside the circumscribed bounds of historical territory and, this time by law, the powers of both hierarch and synod diminish significantly, effectively being reduced to those concerned with matters liturgical. In all other respects, those canonical entities of a sui iuris Church which are situated in the diaspora are exempt from the authority of the primatial hierarch and synod. Stand-alone parishes in the diaspora are subject to the local Latin Ordinary in almost all instances; the canonical jurisdictions are subject to the Oriental Congregation.

Is there a justification for this? Maybe once upon a time, when individual Churches were competing for bodies of faithful and jurisdictional authority over a given place. These days, the constituent population of each Church is effectively defined by tradition, with provisions in place to permit transfer of canonical enrollment for those whose spirituality or circumstances draw them to another Church. So, if there is justification, the argument is elusive, at the least. Is there even a coordinating role for Rome to play? I gave a lot of thought to that aspect, thinking about the clustering of multiple Sees in a single city and concluded, for a brief moment, “ahhh … there’s the need”, but then disabused myself of the notion. After all, presently, Rome does site canonical jurisdictions in the diaspora - has that resulted in a return to the canonical precept of “one city, one bishop”? Hardly, … Chicago boasts three; even Parma, not exactly a major metropolis, guests two - has it no suburbs?

Although, we’re no longer subjected to indignity the like of that inflicted on Saint Alexis Toth by Archbishop John Ireland or on Father John Wolansky, of blessed memory, by Archbishop John Ryan, certainly, having Rome at one’s shoulder or being physically situated in the jurisdictional bounds of your Latin brother hasn’t always been to the benefit of our Churches in the diaspora. Granted, if you were Bishop Justin (Najmy), of blessed memory, in process of establishing a Melkite Exarchate, the fraternal benevolence and generosity of the late Richard Cardinal Cushing was a boon, instrumental to your success.

If, on the other hand, you were Bishop Manuel (Batakian) and learned that the local Latin Cardinal Archbishop was closing the church which served as Cathedral of your Armenian Eparchy, with no offer of an alternative, you might justifiably feel less than blessed. While it cannot be argued that the latter situation would have been different under the direct omophor of the Armenian Patriarch, it is illustrative that direct supervision by the Oriental Congregation has no cachet attached and fraternity apparently has its bounds.

For Metropolitan and Eparchial Churches sui iuris, the situation as to self-governance marks sui iuris as that much more a contradiction in terms. While the primatial hierarch and Council of Hierarchs of a Metropolitan Church enjoy minor privileges, the hierarch of an Eparchial Church - even in its historical territory - exercises no more autonomy than does any local Ordinary of the Latin Church. The few Eparchies which have another jurisdiction attached have no authority over such. All such subordinate jurisdictions are Apostolic Exarchates and as such are responsible to him on whose behalf the Exarch acts; in this instance, that is the Apostolic See. Where is the self-governance? What does being sui iuris do for our Churches?

To my jaundiced eye, the totality of these facts and circumstances suggests that there is no Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church which can be truly described as sui iuris. Is it any wonder that our Orthodox brethren shake their heads in wonder as we trumpet our autonomous status? I think not.

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Historically, all of what are ordinarily termed Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches from which almost all of them derive) were once part, with the Western Church, of a single Church that splintered through the centuries. The first division occurred subsequent to the Council of Ephesus, another after that of Chalcedon, and the third in a time-frame surrounding the so-called Great Schism of 1054 (the schism had its beginnings a century and a half prior and was not complete for as long thereafter). The specific events involved in the separation of these Churches from one another and with the Western Church, and the circumstances that led to some of their adherents reuniting with Rome, are far too involved for this discussion, which is intended primarily as a quick reference to the structure of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as they presently exist. A brief but excellent summary of the historical circumstances peculiar to each of the Churches, reasonably objective and free of polemics, is at The Eastern Christian Churches - A Brief Survey by Father Ron Roberson, CP, at the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA) site.

Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, generally, represent bodies of faithful whose ancestors, at various points in history, entered into communion with Rome from Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, effectively mending, for their part, the mutual schisms that occurred some centuries prior. Since these reunions were not corporate (i.e., none involved reunification in toto of a Church’s hierarchy, clergy, and faithful), there is a counterpart Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Church to every Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church except two - the Maronite Catholic Church and the Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church.

The reason usually advanced as to why these two Churches have no counterpart among the Orthodox Churches is that neither was ever separated from the Church of Rome. However, the continuous communion of the Maronites is a matter of debate among historians. As regards the Italo-Graeco-Albanians, the reality of continuous communion is only true of the Church in its present form, an amalgamation of what were once three distinct ecclesial communities, two of which (Greek and Albanian) have Orthodox counterparts (the third - Italo-Byzantines - is no longer extant as a discernible ecclesia, its faithful having been subsumed into the Italo-Greek Church) .

Arguments are sometimes advanced that the Melkite Greek-Catholic and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches, among others, also never parted communion with Rome. In response to such claims (and similar ones have been advanced on behalf of various other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches), it may be that there were individual canonical jurisdictions (i.e., eparchies) or communities (e.g., parishes) of an Eastern or Oriental Church which remained in union with Rome, de facto, if not overtly. (Certainly, there are documented instances in which jurisdictions maintained dual communion with Rome and Constantinople). However, incontrovertible evidence to support continuous communion with Rome are not readily available or accessible. (In truth, all such claims are of little consequence, given that they are employed primarily as “one-upmanship” by thoses seeking to demonstrate that they are “more Catholic” than others.)

Classifying Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches

There are multiple ways in which one might classify Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, but the most common are:

Eastern versus Oriental

Rite/Tradition/Rescension/Usage

Ecclesial/Hierarchical Status

[continued]

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 07:21:04 AM by Irish Melkite »

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Churches that utilize the Byzantine Rite should technically be termed Eastern Catholic Churches, with most others properly referred to as Oriental Catholic Churches. This distinction mirrors that made between the two Orthodox Communions, i.e., those Orthodox Churches which serve the Divine Liturgy according to the Byzantine or Constantinoplian Rite are commonly termed Eastern Orthodox; those which serve it according to other Rites are ordinarily styled as Oriental Orthodox.

It should be noted, though, that the terms “Eastern” and “Oriental” are actually synonyms and this distinction is, therefore, artificial at best - and cannot readily be made in some languages - French, for instance. In fact, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Catholic are often employed interchangeably as umbrella terms, most commonly by the Vatican, to encompass all Catholic Churches sui iuris other than the Latin or Western Church.

My personal preference is in favor of making the distinction and I generally do so, although it is admittedly oft-times cumbersome and always verbose.

The Maronite Catholic Church, as a consequence of having no Orthodox counterpart, fails to fall neatly into either category - Eastern or Oriental. Similarly, Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches can not be properly classified into either group, since their historical antecedent is the Assyrian Church of the East, which is of neither the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox communions. The tendency, in all three instances, is to include these Churches with the Oriental Catholic Churches, as they are not Byzantine but have historical and liturgical ties to Churches of the Antiochene Rite, which are classed as Oriental. To simplify an already complex discussion, I generally follow that rule (the list below is an exception to my usual practice, for relatively obvious reasons).

Eastern Catholic Churches:

Albanian Greek-Catholic Church

Bielorussian Greek-Catholic Church

Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church

Croatian Greek-Catholic Church

Georgian Greek-Catholic Church

Greek Byzantine Catholic Church

Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church

Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church

Melkite Greek-Catholic Church

Romanian Greek-Catholic Church

Russian Greek-Catholic Church

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church

Slovak Greek-Catholic Church

Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church

Oriental Catholic Churches:

Armenian Catholic Church

Coptic Catholic Church

Ethiopian (& Eritrean) Catholic Church

Syriac Catholic Church

Syro-Malankara Catholic Church

Other Non-Latin Catholic Churches:

Chaldean Catholic Church

Maronite Catholic Church

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Note that this discussion addresses the historical development of Rites in relatively simple fashion. There is further history involved, but it is beyond the scope of what is hoped to be accomplished here, which is to make the reader aware of the different Rites and which Churches use them. The 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches use six different Rites among them. The largest number of Churches (14) use the Byzantine Rite.

Originally, there were three Rites - Latin, Alexandrean, and Antiochene; the Byzantine (or Constantinoplian) Rite was added thereafter. Rites arose from the customs and style of worship in what were then the four most important Christian centers, other than Jerusalem.

Differences among the Rites in liturgical language, rubrics, ritual, devotionals, prayers, liturgical and clerical vesture, etc., sprang initially from the fact that uniformity of praxis was impossible to maintain over time, as the number of clergy increased, local cultures and customs began to be woven into rituals, and both travel and communication were hampered by geography and the limited means available to make and maintain contact among churches and clerics.

Over time, those four Rites were modified or further developed as they were introduced into new regions. Some of these variations were so distinctive as to be deemed separate Rites, among these were the Maronite and Armenian Rites, which each developed in relative isolation because of geography. The result was that many authorities denoted the Maronite as a Rite unto itself; while others placed it within what was termed the West Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite, from whence it had originated. As to the Armenian Rite, although acknowledged to have originated within the Byzantine Rite, it has long since been acknowledged as distinct. The Melkites originally served according to the Antiochene Rite but, as a consequence of coming under the influence of Constantinople, later adopted use of the Byzantine Rite.

Of late, Chaldean has been added to the list of Rites, being formally cited as such in the CCEO, although, historically, it had been classed in the East Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite. I offer two theories to account for it being accorded as a Rite unto itself, with no basis to support either, other than my own personal musings on the matter:

the change may relate to the unique aspect observed in the Liturgy of its counterpart Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, i.e., that there are no explicit Words of Institution in the Anaphora which they most commonly use (although that explanation is weakened by the fact that the Chaldeans themselves serve the Liturgy with explicit Words of Institution); or,

it may reflect an intent on Rome's part to have a Rite associated with each Patriarchate (this argument, however, is weakened by the fact that the Maronite is not delineated in the CCEO as a separate Rite, although many still consider it so - a premise that may change as it returns to its roots by being rid of the myriad latinizations which have accrued to it over the centuries)

My speculation as to why the Maronite is not cited in the CCEO as a distinct and separate Rite is that the need for the Maronites to recover their historical, traditional liturgical identity has, of necessity, caused them to look to their brethren of the Antiochene Rite. This will, assuredly, sacrifice some of the blended Antiochene and Latin praxis that has marked their liturgical style until now and will, in time, cause them to be more definitively denominated as Antiochene. For now, I have retained the older usage, designating it as a distinct Rite.

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

For a long time, each group of Eastern Catholics was referred to by its name (most often reflective of its historical cultural/national identity or ethnic origin), followed by the word “Rite”. Thus, you would hear references to someone being of the “Ukrainian Rite” or to “Melkite Rite Catholics”. At the urging of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs participating in the Second Vatican Council, particularly His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh, Patriarch of Antioch & All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem of the Greek-Melkites, of blessed memory, the Church recognized the status of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as sui iuris ecclesial entities, each of which uses a particular Rite. Thus, it is a disparagement (as well as inaccurate) to substitute “Rite” for “Church” in the name of any of these bodies.

The distinction is made in Canons 27 and 28 of the Eastern Code of Canon Law:

Canon 27

A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy, according to the norm of law, which the supreme authority of the Church, expressly or tacitly, recognizes as sui iuris, is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

Canon 28

1. A Rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.

Beyond the codified definition of “Rite”, it should be further understood to be the collected liturgical patrimony or heritage by which a body of faithful conduct their religious life. It is more than just differences in language, culture, and vesture, although those are often among the most immediately obvious distinctions. It's often thought of as strictly applicable to liturgical worship service; it actually includes the totality of a people's religious expression, including their sacraments, sacramentals, devotionals, prayers, music, and even aspects of their religious artistic expression and ecclesial architecture.

Interestingly, in the West, persons belong to a Rite and Rites to a Church (which uses more than a single Rite). In the East, persons belong to a Church and the Church (in some instances, more than a single Church) to a Rite. (In the cases of the Armenian, and Maronite Rites, each Rite is used by only a single Church sui iuris and, in both of these instances, the Church's name and that of the Rite are identical.)

By way of example:

most Western Catholics belong to the Latin Rite with smaller numbers adhering to the Ambrosian, Bragan, and Mozarabic Rites, all of which Rites belong to the Latin Church; while,

some Eastern Catholics belong to the Melkite Church, which (with 13 other Churches) uses the Byzantine Rite.

Rites, the delineations within each (e.g., Traditions, Rescensions, and Usages) and the jurisdictional considerations which affect those, have been used to illustrate the functional structure of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as applied to liturgical praxis.

[continued]

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 07:46:09 AM by Irish Melkite »

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Tradition is a distinction within a Rite that principally reflects variations of culture, sometimes including ecclesial language. Within some Traditions, there are also what are styled Rescensions.

Rescension is a distinction in characteristics of the form of worship that is unique to one or more of the Churches or their constituent canonical jurisdictions that follow a particular Tradition (or, in some instances, a particular Rite in which there is no intervening break-down by Tradition). Note that, historically, "Recension" has been a term used in conjunction with Liturgy only as to the Ruthenians; however, there remains a level of distinction in the praxis of some of the Churches which falls beneath that of Tradition, but is more than a Usage. So, Rescension it will be, unless/until someone offers me a better choice by which to term the differentiation.

Church is a sui iuris body of faithful which worships according to a particular Rite.

Usage is a term that ordinarily denotes limited, localized differences within a Church itself (as opposed to a Rescension, which generally occurs at the level of Rite or Tradition). Although employed in the Latin Church {e.g., the Anglican Usage), to the best of my knowledge, it is not anywhere officially applied to any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. However, in my opinion, it is the most logical term to describe liturgical praxis that accommodates specific, localized variations in language and/or ceremony. I’ve qualified these by whatever jurisdictional limits are known to be applicable to the Usage.

Jurisdiction indicates a canonical entity within a Church. Jurisdictions are listed in either of the following instances (in some cases, both considerations apply):

When none of two or more jurisdictions in a Church has been designated as its primatial See (e.g., as is the case with the Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church), each of the jurisdictions comprising the Church is listed; or,

When some distinctive consideration (i.e., Tradition, Rescension, Usage) is either applicable to or excludes one or more specific jurisdictions (e.g., a metropolia) within a Church from the praxis of the Church as a whole, the relevant jurisdictions are cited.

Dependent Jurisdiction further defines the canonical entity or entities (e.g., an eparchy within a metropolia) to which application of a praxis factor (i.e., Tradition, Rescension, Usage) is limited or from which it is excluded.

Jurisdictional Limitations narrow, yet further, the canonical entity or entities (e.g., a parish within an eparchy) to which application of a praxis factor is limited or from which it is excluded.

Special Circumstances document unique considerations applicable to a Church or certain of its jurisdictions. As examples, these might include:

That one or more of a Church’s jurisdictions canonically serve a discrete ethnic or national sub-group within that Church, albeit there is not a distinct Tradition, Rescension, or Usage involved in doing so.

That one or more of a Church’s jurisdictions have designated pastoral responsibility for the faithful of another Church;

That some or all of a Church’s pastoral entities (i.e., parishes or missions) are subject to the canonical authority of another Church

That some or all of a Church‘s jurisdictions are suppressed de facto, albeit not de jure.

That a Church has or does not have canonical jurisdictions in the diaspora is not routinely noted. In instances where such is documented, it was for the purpose of recording some particular fact. (Admittedly, there are also some relatively trivial details reported as to some Churches or jurisdictions. The purpose in that was to assure that information of a principally nostalgic nature, not uncommonly disregarded in formal histories, was recorded somewhere, for whatever it is worth.)

The schematic is intended as a self-explanatory, quick reference to the praxis of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. Over time, detail has been added because it seemed important to do so or in response to repeated requests for its inclusion. Such detail has created, in turn, the need for yet more information, requiring explanatory notes in some instances and making it increasingly difficult for the schematic to be a stand-alone document. To assure clarity, while attempting to maintain the integrity of the schematic, the notes have been added at the end.

[Continued]

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 07:59:17 AM by Irish Melkite »

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

The outline of the schematic is generally as follows. (Every effort has been made to avoid or minimize instances in which the breakout deviates from this because of the intervention of peculiar circumstances, requiring more levels of detail. But, it’s not for nothing that many of us are called “byzantine”):

Rite

Tradition

Rescension

Church

Usage

Jurisdiction

Jurisdictional Limits-1

Jurisdictional Limits-2

Special Circumstances

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Our Lady of Wisdom Parish, Las Vegas, NV was erected by and is a parish of the Eparchy of Van Nuys of the Ruthenians, established to provide pastoral care to Italo-Greek Catholics according to the Byzantine Graeco-Italian Rescension

Single Mission in diaspora - Marian House, London, England, is canonically subject to the local Latin Ordinary

Christ the Redeemer Parish, Chicago, IL, memory eternal, which had been canonically subject to the local Latin Ordinary, was canonically suppressed in 2003; pastoral care of the suppressed Parish’s faithful was informally assumed by the Eparchy of Saint George in Canton of the Romanians

Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church

Nikonian Usage

Russian Greek-Catholic Church

Nikonian Usage

Apostolic Exarchate of Harbin - sede vacante

Exarchate suppressed de facto but not de jure

No Parishes extant

Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow (sede vacante)

All Parishes, except

Single Old Ritualist Parish

Parishes in the diaspora

All Parishes in the diaspora are canonically subject to local Latin Ordinaries, although some are or were under the spiritual omophor of hierarchs of other Byzantine Rite Churches

Saint Andrew Parish, El Segundo, CA - under the spiritual omophor of the Eparch of Newton of the Melkites

Ss. Cyril & Methodius Mission, Denver, CO - under the spiritual omophor of the Eparch of Saint George in Canton of the Romanians

Chapel of Saint Nicholas, Kew, Victoria, Australia - under the spiritual omophor of the Eparch of Saint Michael in Sydney of the Melkites

Our Lady of Kazan Chapel, South Boston, MA, memory eternal, was under the spiritual omophor of the then-Apostolic Exarch for Melkite-Greek Catholics in the US; the Chapel was canonically suppressed in 1974

Pre-Nikonian (Old Ritualist) Usage

Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow

Single Parish only

Parishes in the diaspora

Divine Liturgy is no longer served in the Old Ritualist Chapel of Theotokos of Tikhvin of Mount Angel Benedictine Abbey, Mount Angel, OR

Romanian Rescension

Romanian Greek-Catholic Church

Pastoral care of the Church’s faithful in Canada is the canonical responsibility of the Arch-Eparchy and Eparchies of the Metropolia of Winnipeg of the Ukrainians

Pastoral care of the faithful of a canonically suppressed Bielorussian Greek-Catholic Parish was informally assumed by the Eparchy of Saint George in Canton of the Romanians

All canonical jurisdictions,except

Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians

Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians serves according to the Little Russian (Ruthenian) Rescension of the Byzantine Rite

Ss Peter & Paul Parish, Chicago, IL, memory eternal, was given over to the pastoral care of the then-Apostolic Exarchate of the Ruthenians in the US in 1937, transferred to Eparchy of Parma of the Ruthenians in 1969, and canonically suppressed ca. 1985

Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker Parish, Cleveland, OH, was given over to the pastoral care of the then-Apostolic Exarchate of the Ruthenians in the US ca. 1937 and subsequently transferred to the Eparchy of Parma of the Ruthenians in 1969

Pastoral care of the Church’s faithful in the US is the canonical responsibility of the Arch-Eparchy and Eparchies of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians

Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church

Pastoral care of the Church’s faithful in Canada is the canonical responsibility of the Arch-Eparchy and Eparchies of the Metropolia of Winnipeg of the Ukrainians

Pastoral care of the Church’s faithful in the US is the canonical responsibility of the Arch-Eparchy and Eparchies of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians

Romanian Greek-Catholic Church

Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians only

Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church

Pastoral care of the Church’s faithful in Canada is the canonical responsibility of the Eparchy of Ss Cyril & Methodius in Toronto of the Slovaks

Note 1: Ge’ez Tradition - There is frequent use of the terminology “Ge’ez Rite”, including by Ethiopian Catholics themselves. This reflects, in part, an effort to assert a distinction between their liturgical form and that of the Copts, a task made more difficult by the tendency to style the Rite of all North African Churches as “Coptic” rather than “Alexandrian.” I adhere to the usage of “Alexandrian” for the Rite and employ “Ge’ez” to distinguish between the Copts and Ethiopians on the basis of Tradition. (Ge’ez is actually the name of an ancient tongue, related to Amharic, and is the traditional liturgical language of the Ethiopian Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.)

Note 2: Ethiopian (& Eritrean) Catholic Church - Increasingly, the name of the Ethiopian Catholic Church is rendered as Ethiopian/Eritrean Catholic Church (or Eritrean used parenthetically, as here). This is significant because it acknowledges that the Ethiopian Church is affording pastoral care to a distinct ethnic/national/cultural body of Eastern Christians (and, like it or not, in the homelands at least, Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches are generally very much defined by such characteristics).

Note 3: East versus West Syrian Traditions - This distinction is less important now that the Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches are considered to be of a Chaldean Rite, rather than being included within the Antiochene Rite. The styling is retained here primarily for reference purposes.

Note 4: Knanaya/Knanaites - The Knanya are Oriental Catholic and Orthodox descended from 72 families of Christian Jews, comprising about 400 persons, who emigrated to India in three ships about 345 AD under the leadership of Knaithomman or Thomas the Cananite. The immigrants are said to have been accompanied by a bishop, whom history records as Uraha Mar Yausef (Joseph), four presbyters, and deacons. The Knanaites, a strictly endogenous community, retain particular liturgical, devotional, and cultural practices unique to themselves and, by the Apostolic Brief Universi Christiani, Pope Saint Pius X erected a personal jurisdiction (now the autonomous Metropolitan Arch-Eparchy of Kottayam) for them within the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Although formal Knanya jurisdictions exist only in that Church and the Syrian Orthodox Jacobite (Indian) Church, there are Knanaites within each of the Indian ecclesial communities (other than the Latin Catholic) and, officially or otherwise, provisions are made to accommodate their praxis in all of the Churches of Saint Thomas Christians. The resultant complexities are illustrated by the seeming incongruity of a Usage from one Rite (Antiochene) being employed within the canonical jurisdiction of another Rite (Chaldean), i.e.. the (Chaldean Rite) Syro-Malabarese maintaining parishes in 2 of their eparchies for Syro-Malankara Knanaites, in which the liturgical forms employed are those of the Malankarese's ancestral (Antiochene) Rite.

Note 5: Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - “Greek-” as the adjectival descriptor to “Catholic” is used throughout for the majority of the Churches in the Byzantine Rite. The inclusion of 'Byzantine' in styling the Greek and Italo-Graeco-Albanian Catholic Churches reflects the fact that 'Greek' is already an integral part of the cultural and ethnic heritage reflected in their names. (The Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church has adopted the term 'Byzantine' as an integral aspect of its name, not without some negative reaction from those of other Churches which are also Byzantine in practice.)

Note 6: Georgian Greek-Catholic Church - Reference to this Church is frequently missing from lists of Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches and, within a few decades (if not sooner), mention of it will, almost assuredly, be in a footnote accompanied by the prayer “memory eternal”. The Church has been without clergy for a half-century and its surviving faithful presently are estimated to number in the hundreds.

Note 7: Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - See the comments at Note 5 regarding retention of the usage “Byzantine” in the Church’s name.

Note 8: Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - Although Byzantine in Rite, this Church is technically of the Latin or Western Patriarchate.

Note 9: Croatian Greek-Catholic Church - There is a decided tendency to label this Church by the name of its canonical jurisdiction, Krizevci, for reasons that are unclear, or as “Greek Catholics in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia” (a term suggestive of Tito’s effort to meld a country of a myriad of ethnicities who really wanted nothing to do with one another). The primatial jurisdiction is essentially comprised of Croats, a point made more clear by the establishment of separate jurisdictions within its overall structure for three other ethnic bodies; the more accurate descriptor “Croatian” is used here.

Note 10: Usages in the Syro-Malarbarese Church - Other than the Knanaite, the distinction of "Usages" is not "official". Rather, it is an effort to put to paper (in some logical and non-polemical form) the various liturgical variations that are currently prevalent in the Syro-Malabar Church as a consequence of the internal debate in that Church as to the form the Holy Qurbana should take.

What I describe as Assyro-Chaldean Usage is that of antiquity, to which Rome apparently hopes the Church will return (albeit, Rome itself effectively created the situation that resulted in it being initially abandoned). Malabarese Usage is the term that I've applied to the heavily latinized Qurbana; those who support this Usage (and resist the idea of returning to the Assyro-Chaldean Usage) deem this to be "Indianized" - rather than "Latinized"Mixed (Chaldean-Malabarese) Usage seeks to describe a move on the part of some hierarchs and clergy to serve the Holy Qurbana in a way that incorporates some of the more ancient praxis without abandoning all aspects of the latinized form - essentially a hybrid usage. It is debated whether this is a genuine effort to effect compromise or simply a measure hoped to placate Rome and bring an end to its concern.

I do not have details as to the particulars of differences in praxis among the 3, other than that the orientation of the celebrant to the people and altar is involved. It is certainly a struggle to keep in mind that "Indianized" - to those seeking to avoid the return to an Assyrian form - is equivalent to "Latinized" - in the minds of those who want to see that return happen.)

[continued]

« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 06:15:20 AM by Irish Melkite »

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Other than historical precedent (and even that is not consistent across all instances), no factor is acknowledged as determinant in deciding the ecclesiastical office to be accorded to the primatial hierarch of any Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church. Changes in the past century, elevating the ruling hierarchs of several Churches (and, accordingly, the ecclesiastical status of the Churches themselves), arguably support the proposition that the number of faithful is the primary consideration in so doing. Less clear is the motivation that inspired Rome to create a hitherto non-existent canonical jurisdiction (i.e., major archepiscopate) and accompanying hierarchical styling (i.e., major-archbishop) intermediate to the traditional patriarchate and metropolia, although reasonable hypotheses can be offered toward explaining it.

Presently, within each Rite, there is one hierarch of the dignity of Patriarch; in most instances. Major-Archbishops exist in four Churches, of three different Rites. Metropolitans are the ruling hierarchs of two Churches.

In theory, the remaining Churches should each be headed by a bishop exercising the office of Eparch; in fact, some are headed by bishops, others by prelates of lesser status. Those incumbents are variously styled as Eparch, Exarch, Apostolic Administrator, Apostolic Visitator, or Abbot, corresponding to the jurisdictions headed; among those, only Eparchs can be said to actually exercise hierarchical jurisdiction.

Ordinariates for Faithful of the Eastern or Oriental Rites are jurisdictions erected in nations with a Catholic population that is predominantly Latin, but with a substantial minority presence of Eastern or Oriental Catholic faithful who are without a canonical jurisdiction or hierarch. Officially, there are five such Ordinariates; a sixth Ordinariate, not formally designated, exists de facto, albeit not de jure.

The import of a Church’s ecclesial/hierarchical status chiefly lies in the degree of autonomy which its primatial hierarch and its hierarchy, as a body, are able, technically, to exercise without recourse to Rome or the necessity to be accorded confirmation or approval by Rome of appointments, decisions, etc..

Patriarchal Churches

Armenian Catholic Church

Chaldean Catholic Church

Coptic Catholic Church

Maronite Catholic Church

Melkite Greek-Catholic Church

Syriac Catholic Church

Major Archepiscopal Churches

Romanian Catholic Church

Syro-Malabaese Catholic Church

Syro-Malankara Catholic Church

Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church

Metropolitan Churches

Ethiopian Catholic Church

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church (US)

Eparchial Churches

Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church

Croatian Greek-Catholic Church

Greek Byzantine Catholic Church

Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church

Italo-Grieco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church (Europe)

Slovak Greek-Catholic Church

Eparchial Churches sine episcopi

Albanian Greek-Catholic Church

Belarusan Greek-Catholic Church

Georgian Greek-Catholic Church

Russian Greek-Catholic Church

Ordinariates

Ordinariate of Argentina, Faithful of the Oriental Rites

Ordinariate of Austria, Faithful of the Eastern Rites (Byzantine)

Ordinariate of Brazil, Faithful of the Oriental Rites

Ordinariate of France, Faithful of the Eastern Rites

Ordinariate of Poland, Faithful of the Eastern Rites

Ordinariate of Russia, Faithful of the Eastern Rites (unofficial)

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Armenian Catholic ChurchHis Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni, Catholicos & Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenias for All the Catholic Armenians & Arch-Eparch of Cilicia of the Armenians

Chaldean Catholic ChurchHis Holiness Mar Emmanuel III (Karim) Cardinal Delli, Catholicos and Patriarch of Babylon and Ur of the Chaldees for the Catholic Chaldeans & Arch-Eparch of Baghdad of the Chaldeans

Coptic Catholic ChurchHis Holiness Antonios Naguib, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Catholic Copts & Arch-Eparch of Alexandria of the Copts

Maronite Catholic ChurchHis Beatitude Mar Nasrallah Boutros Cardinal Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East of the Maronites & Arch-Eparch of Antioch of the Maronites

Melkite Greek-Catholic ChurchHis Beatitude Gregory III (Loutfi) Laham, BSO, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, of the Melkite Greek Catholics & Arch-Eparch of Antioch of the Melkites

Syriac Catholic ChurchHis Beatitude Mar Ignace Pierre VIII (Gregoire) Abdel-Ahad, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East of the Syrian Catholics & Arch-Eparch of Antioch of the Syrians

Eparchial Churches are Eastern Catholic Churches “entrusted to hierarchs who preside over (the Church) as per the norms of common and particular law”.

All such Churches are of the Byzantine-Greek or Byzantine-Slav Traditions. All but one of the presiding hierarchs are of the Order of Bishop, but are variously styled as to the offices they hold, since not all of the jurisdictions are currently designated as eparchies. Each of the presiding hierarchs derives and is accorded precedence based on his office (i.e., that he exercises canonical jurisdiction over a Church sui iuris) rather than his ecclesiastical rank or title.

Note: Since there are three independent jurisdictions within this Church and no one hierarch has been designated as presiding the Church, there are, technically, three distinct Churches sui iuris. However, the Church is counted as one for purposes of calculating the number of Eastern Churches.

Note: This Church, situated in the Eastern Europe homeland of its faithful, has no formal canonical relationship with the Metropolia of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church sui iuris in the US. Therefore, technically, each is a Church sui iuris, however, the two are a single entity for purposes of counting Eastern Churches.

These are Churches “entrusted to hierarchs (not necessarily of the Rite) who preside over (the Church) as per the norms of common and particular laws” (hierarchs locum tenens), either because the Church was never formally organized with a hierarchy or its principal See is vacant (sede vacante). All are of the Byzantine Greek or Slav Traditions.

Note: The Apostolic Exarchate for Byzantine Belarusan Catholics, has been vacant since WWII, when the Church was civilly suppressed under Communist rule. The Church’s last hierarch, Bishop Vladimir Tarasevitch, OSB, of blessed memory, reposed in exile. The Church's rights were restored in 1989 but, to date, the See has not been reconstituted.

The prelates delegated responsibility (but not jurisdiction) for the Church at present are:

Note: The Apostolic Exarchate of Istanbul for the Byzantine Georgian Catholics has been vacant since the martyrdom in odium fidei of the Servant of God Father Archimandrite & Exarch Shio Batmanishvili by the Communists in 1937. The single temple has been given over to the use and care of another Church sui iuris, there are less than 200 faithful, and there are no clergy.

Note: This Church has two jurisdictions with no formal canonical relationship between the two, and no one hierarch was ever designated as presiding the Church. Therefore, technically, each is a Church sui iuris, however, the two are a single entity for purposes of counting Eastern Churches.

Both jurisdictions were considered to have been vacant since the martyrdom in odium fidei of their last known incumbents. Blessed Father Archimandrite & Exarch Kliment Sheptitsky, Apostolic Exarch of Moscow reposed in 1951 and the Servant of God Father Archimandrite & Exarch Fabian Abrantovic, MIC, in 1946, while in custody of the Communist government.

It was long speculated that Moscow’s exarchial line had continued in peccatore (literally, “in the heart” of the Pope). Such appointments are used to protect individuals named to hierarchal positions and the faithful generally, in lands where the Church is under persecution or otherwise repressed. Those so designated are not publicly identified unless and until the circumstances which necessitated secrecy change; if that does not happen, the secret of the appointment dies, unrevealed, with the Pope involved.

Documents recently reviewed by Father Archimandrite Sergii (Golovanov), Administrator, Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow for Byzantine Russian Catholics reveal that the Russian Greek-Catholic Church’s last known hierarch, Bishop Andrei Katkov, of blessed memory, was designated Apostolic Exarch of Moscow, in camera (i.e., in secret), a subtle distinction based on the appointment having been revealed, albeit not publicly. Previously, Bishop Andrei was only known as an episcopus ordinans (i.e., ordaining bishop) without jurisdiction,

In response to action by the presbyterate of the Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow for Byzantine Russian Catholics to appoint an Administrator, Rome designated an Ordinary for Faithful of the Eastern Rites.

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

With one exception, the following ethnic or national communities are named in the titling of canonical jurisdictions within the Churches sui iuris indicated, but they do not themselves presently have a distinct sui iuris identity or status.

Czech Greek-Catholics

Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic for Faithful of the Eastern Rites - Ruthenian Catholic Church

Eritreans

Eparchy of Asmara - Ethiopian Catholic Church

Eparchy of Barentu - Ethiopian Catholic Church

Eparchy of Keren - Ethiopian Catholic Church

Macedonian Greek-Catholics (non-Greek ethnicity)

Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia for Faithful of the Eastern Rites - Croatian Catholic Church

Montenegron Greek-Catholics

Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia & Montenegro - Croatian Catholic Church

Serbian Greek-Catholics

Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia & Montenegro - Croatian Catholic Church

Note: The significance of these canonical jurisdictions lies in the fact that they serve identifiable ethnic or national communities with Eastern or Oriental Catholic populations distinct from that of the Church sui iuris within which the jurisdiction is situated. Although one can find lists of Churches sui iuris which will include reference to one or more of these (most especially that of the Czechs) as being a Church sui iuris; none of them are presently so designated.

Whether any of them will be denoted as such in the future is an arguable question. Many would suggest that Rome is not inclined to create additional Churches within the sphere of Eastern & Oriental Catholicism, particularly as doing so might further antagonize ecumenical dialogue and relations with the Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, there are several examples in which cultural, ethnic, geo-political, and historical conflicts and differences exist between the peoples served by the parent and constituent jurisdictions. Such circumstances persuasively argue for the wisdom of separating the two into distinct ecclesial entities - notwithstanding concerns with regard to Churches being perceived as national or ethnic in orientation.

Relations between the Ethiopians and Eritreans are a case in point, exemplified by the organizational structure of their counterpart Orthodox brethren. The Eritrean Orthodox are closely allied with and were granted their Patriarchate by the Coptic Orthodox Church, rather than the Ethiopian Tewahado Orthodox Church. The other prime example involves “Greek-Catholics of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia” (a terminology that appears to have taken on an identity of its own) - these disparate peoples, especially the Croats and Serbs, have a history replete with antagonism and hostility at levels that argue persuasively against forging common identity, even one based on shared religious belief as its underlayment.

Ordinariates

All except one Ordinariate are headed by a ranking Latin hierarch of the nation in which each is situated.

Ordinariate of Argentina, Faithful of the Oriental Rites

Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, SJ, Ordinary

Note: The Ordinariate affords canonical oversight to 2,000 faithful. Its authority does not include Armenian or Maronite Catholics or Ukrainian Greek-Catholics, as those Churches each have an Eparchy in Argentina, nor does it encompass Melkite Greek-Catholics, whose Church has an Apostolic Exarchate in Argentina.

Ordinariate of Austria, Faithful of the Eastern Rites (Byzantine)

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, OP, Ordinary

Note: The authority of the Austrian Ordinariate encompasses 8,000 faithful of Byzantine Rite Churches. It does not extend to Armenian Catholics, as that Church has an Ordinariate for its faithful in European nations who are not served by any of its other canonical jurisdictions.

Ordinariate of Brazil, Faithful of the Oriental Rites

Eusebio Oscar Cardinal Scheid, SCI, Ordinary

Note: The Brazilian Ordinariate has canonical responsibility for 10,000 faithful of Churches other than those of the Maronite Catholics and the Melkite and Ukrainian Greek-Catholics, each of which has an Eparch in Brazil.

Ordinariate of France, Faithful of the Eastern Rites

Andre Armand Vingt-Trois, Ordinary

Note: The authority of the French Ordinariate is for 45,000 faithful of Churches other than the Armenian Catholic Church, which has an Eparchy in France, and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which has an Apostolic Exarchate.

Ordinariate of Poland, Faithful of the Eastern Rites

Jozef Cardinal Glemp, Ordinary

Note: The authority of the Polish Ordinariate extends solely to Armenian Catholics and a single "neo-Uniate" parish of the Byzantine Rite, which serves according to the Nikonian Usage of the Russian Greek-Catholic Church; the Ordinariate has failed to report data relative to numbers of faithful in 10 years.

Ordinariate of Russia, Faithful of the Eastern Rites (unofficial)

Joseph Werth, SJ, Bishop of the (Latin) Diocese of Trasfigurazione a Novosibirsk

Note: To date, despite an announcement made to the effect, Rome has failed canonically erect the Ordinariate and formally publish the appointment of Bishop Werth according to the usual protocol for doing so.

[continued]

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

I think this deserves to be a nice sticky if no one objects. This is after all just an informative thread, which I thank Fr. Ambrose for.

Fr. bless!

Mina, (the same Mina that I used to know at the Voice in the Desert?)

Dear friends though we are, and him barely my senior by about 10 months, and we both being of Irish ancestry, and good-looking , and of impeccable taste , and imbued with a wonderful sense of humor , and possessing all those other wonderful Irish qualities - including a huge quotient of humility , it's not all that surprising that we're mistaken for one another.

But, looking up at the 7 smiling faces staring from my mantel, I don't think anyone is going to believe me if I claim to be a hermit

Many years,

Neil, the other Irish poster

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

Why do Rite churches exist? How come in somecountries, you have RC (Latin right?) churches without anational church, while in others (usually Orthodoxcountries) you have Rite Churches?

Plus, I assume that in some countries you haveboth Rite and RC Church (as in the US, come to think it). I would think this presents a problembecause, in these places, you have two jurisdictionsin the "one" Catholic Church.

Finally, where does the Chinese Catholic Churchfit into all of this?

Thanks in advance. By the way, I like the ideaof locking this thread, despite this addition .

trifecta

Logged

born Catholic, became a Protestant, now and hereafter an Orthodox Christian

Why do Rite churches exist? How come in some countries, you have RC (Latin right?) churches without a national church, while in others (usually Orthodox countries) you have Rite Churches?

This is the simpler aspect. Remember that, with the exception of the Maronites, Catholic Churches of other than the Latin Rite mirror an Orthodox Church in spirituality and praxis and are comprised in large measure of (the descendents) of persons who came into union with Rome at some point subsequent to the various time points in which separations occurred among the various Apostolic Churches. Logically, then, these (Eastern and Oriental Catholic) Churches are generally going to exist in the same country as the (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox) Church from which they separated. And, without question, the rationale for maintaining the faithful of these in their historic spirituality and praxis included a hope that doing so would provide an inviting venue by which more of their fellow Orthodox would follow - a premise that isn't generally supported any longer.

Countries in which Latin churches exist without any "national" church presence are generally those which don't have religious, cultural, ethnic ties to peoples who have been historically Orthodox (that generally includes those countries in which the presence of Orthodoxy is of relatively recent vintage, rather than of long-standing nature - examples would be Japan and Finland) and there is not a history of persons separating from Orthodoxy and entering union with Rome. (Poland, for a variety of reasons that are exemplary of abuse by Latins of Eastern Catholics, is an exception. It has, for all intents, no counterpart Eastern Catholic Church - there are churches of other Eastern Catholic ethnicities, such as Ukrainians - despite the presence of a Polish Orthodox Church.)

Quote

Plus, I assume that in some countries you have both Rite and RC Church (as in the US, come to think it). I would think this presents a problem because, in these places, you have two jurisdictions in the "one" Catholic Church.

Heck, there are places where there are three or four hierarchs/juridictions in a single city (Chicago comes to mind), with each exercising jurisdiction over distinct faithful. And, there are at least three instances in which a hierarch has jurisdiction over his faithful throughout the entire US - thus, effectively overlapping a myriad of Latin hierarchs, as well as several Eastern and Oriental hierarchs who each have smaller territorial jurisdictions within the country. Is it a problem? Does it offend the Canon of "one bishop in one place"? Under the strictest interpretation, it does, as does the similar situation with regard to our Orthodox brethren - who likewise have geographic overlap in exercising canonical jurisdiction over their respective faithful. All of us, Catholic and Orthodox, effectively have created our own fictions and oekonomia to explain the necessity to do so and I have to be honest, I am so tired of the rehashing of arguments about it that I have little patience for it anymore. Those in either Church who would seek to defend their own praxis in this regard and condemn that of the other Church are, to my mind, conducting an exercise in hypocrisy, in which I can't any longer bother to participate.

Quote

Finally, where does the Chinese Catholic Church fit into all of this?

The Catholic Church in China is of the Latin Rite; although there was (and still is, albeit, civilly suppressed) a Byzantine Exarchate in Harbin and Byzantine Catholic churches there and in Shanghai, the majority of the faithful of those were Russian Byzantines, rather than Chinese - which I think was also the case when the earliest Orthodox temples were established there. Both Churches suffered extensively, including giving many martyrs, especially during the communist years after WWII and neither has truly had the opportunity to be re-established.

If you are asking the question in the context of the styling "Oriental Catholics", the reference is not to Orientals in the common parlance. The terminology is used as counterpart to Oriental Orthodox - being the Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Syro-Malankara.

Hope that answers your questions (I'm having trouble deciding, because I'm reading and responding through a haze of cold/flu medication)

Many years,

Neil

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I've been told otherwise by those who have been told (by someone in authority) otherwise:all Protestants, consequently must go Latin rite. That would explain, for instance, why only one the Latin church has missionions and the other 22 only have them in their homeland and diaspora.

I know that the Phanar envies this setup, but that's why Chambesy isnn't going anywhere.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 05:09:21 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I've been told otherwise by those who have been told (by someone in authority) otherwise:all Protestants, consequently must go Latin rite. That would explain, for instance, why only one the Latin church has missionions and the other 22 only have them in their homeland and diaspora.

so i guess the best way to become eastern catholic is to actually become roman rite catholic but practise eastern spirituality.

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

Hi Papist and podkarpatska. So, if I understand this right, the question you guys are (or were) talking about is, Why does a Catholic need the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction. Or am I misunderstanding the question?

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

Hi Papist and podkarpatska. So, if I understand this right, the question you guys are (or were) talking about is, Why does a Catholic need the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction. Or am I misunderstanding the question?

P.S. I just came across this post of mine (having forgotten about it). It occurs to me that perhaps I ought to have said: Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction? Anyone?

Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?

Do any of you have an answer to that?

IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?

Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?

Do any of you have an answer to that?

IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?

As dzheremi pointed out, we may be talking about two different things here.

You seem to be talking about someone leaving Catholicism (whether for Orthodoxy or for something else). In that case, certainly they would not receive permission from their old bishop to do so.

When I said "transfer to a different jurisdiction" I meant within the Catholic Church. I was responding to podkarpatska's post:

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

(P.S. On the other hand, maybe we are talking about the same thing, given your last sentence: